Studies in Jaina Philosophy

SR No.: 001616
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Jain Cultural Research Society
Publication Year: 1951
Total Pages: 366
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Knowledge, Yoga, & Epistemology
File Size: 9 MB

Page 169

132
PROBLEM OF AVIDYA
[CH.
tion is free from the duality of the perceived and the perceiver. It is called sūnya (void) because it does not contain the duality. It is not śünya (absolute negation) in itself. The prius of unreal imagination is void (sünya) of the perceived and the perceiver (grāhya-grāhaka) even as a rope is void of snakeness. It can be defined by existence (sattva) as well as by non-existence (asattva). It exists as well as does not exist. It exists quâ itself. But it does not exist quâ the perceiver and the perceived (grāhya-grāhaka), because there is no duality in it.? There is absolute non-existence of duality. But the awareness of duality cannot be denied. This awareness is abhūtaparikalpa quâ unreal imagination or constructive ideation. It cannot but be illusory inasmuch as it is an awareness of the unreal duality. But then the objection naturally arises: Why should not this illusory awareness (bhrānti-vijñāna) itself be condemned to be as unreal as the perceived and the perceiver? Maitreyanātha says that the abhūtaparikalpa quâ unreal imagination cannot be absolutely non-existent because emancipation is held to be due to the destruction of it. If there were no illusion (bhrānti) at all, there would be no afflictions (sanklesa) and hence no bondage (bandha). Consequently there would be no emancipation because emancipation presupposes bondage. And in that case the reality should be taken as it appears, or it should be condemned as an absolute nothing. The postulation of illusion (bhränti), therefore, is necessary for the establishment of emancipation. This illusion, as we have said above, consists in the awareness of duality. If the awareness of the duality of the perceived and the perceiver were an absolute reality (paramärtha) there would be eternal afflictions (sankleśa) and consequently there would be absence of emancipation (nirvana). On the other hand, if that were an absolute non-entity there would be total absence of afflictions (sankleśa) and consequently eternal freedom from afflictions (vyavadāna). But both these consequences of absence of emancipation and eternal freedom from afflictions are undesirable, because both of them imply futility of all endeavours for emancipation. On these grounds, it is established that the abhūta
(grāhya-grāhaka)-rahitatā 'bhūta parikalpasya sünyatā. na khaly abhūtaparikalpo 'pi na bhavati. yathā rajjuh śünyā sarpatvabhāvena tatsvabhāvatvābhāvāt sarvakālam śünyā da tu rajjusvabhāvena tathe 'hā 'pi.Ibid.
2 abhūta parikalpo 'sti 'ti. tenā 'bhūtaparikalpasya sattvam nirdisyate ity arthaḥ . . . . tat punar grāhyagrahakabhāvenä 'sattvam yasmad abhūtaparikalpe dvayam ná 'sti tasmad abhūtaparikalpo 'pi dvayātmanā nāsti 'ty uktam bhavati-Ibid., p. 14.
3 kimartham punas tasya bhränti-vijñānasyā 'bhäva eva ne 'syate grähya-grāhakavat-Ibid., p. 18.
4 na tathā sarvathābhāvas tatkṣayān muktir işyate.-MVS, I. 50-d.
5 Cf. bhrántimätre 'py asati samkleśābhāvād bandho 'pi nāsti, pūrvasmäddhi bandhanan muktir iti muktir api nästi, kimiti yathā prakhyātis tathā bhāvo ne 'syate, sarvathā vā 'bhāva iti-MVSBT, p. 18.